MG #1
In what ways did pastoral societies differ from their agricultural counterparts?

-Pastoral societies generally had less productive economies than agricultural societies
-Pastoral societies required more grazing land than agricultural societies.
-The combination of the above differences also meant that pastoral societies supported a smaller population than in agricultural societies.
-Pastorals organized themselves into clans, where members claimed a common ancestry. At times, these clans merged into tribes and absorbed unrelated people into the community. This clan/tribe system differed sharply from the class/caste system of agriculturalists.
-Pastoral women enjoyed a higher status, fewer restrictions, more freedom, and a greater role in public life than agricultural women.
-Pastoral societies were far more mobile than agricultural societies. Pastoral societies' mobility was controlled by nature/local environment, such as changing seasons leading to changes in water availability, vegetation, and climate.

Reply

Kathryn King

11/10/2013 12:57:06 am

I think that this answer can be condensed.
-Less productive economies and the need for more grazing land in pastoral societies led to a smaller population than in agricultural societies.
-Pastoralists lived in clans that that claimed common ancestry.
-Women enjoyed higher status and fewer restrictions.
-Pastoral societies were more mobile and depended on the environment.
Another answer that could possibly answer the question is:
-Pastoralists were able to master then environments that were unsuitable for agriculture. The agriculturalists were totally at the mercy of the environment.

Reply

Kathryn

11/10/2013 12:59:52 am

Just realized that I made a contradiction. The pastoral societies depended on the environment and used it to determine where they wanted to go. The agriculturalists depended on the environment because they couldn't harvest food without a suitable environment.

Claire Metusalem

11/10/2013 02:27:07 am

MQ #2
In what ways did pastoral societies interact with their agricultural neighbors?
~ They couldn't survive with just their output, so they relied heavily on their agricultural neighbors for foodstuffs, manufactured goods, and luxury items.
~ The nomads could more effectively and fairly deal with their agricultural neighbors because of the forming of confederations or nomadic states.
~ The states could extract wealth through trading, raiding, and extortion.
~ Nomadic peoples adopted all of the major religions including Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.

Let me know if I missed anything!

Reply

Bingham

11/10/2013 04:02:09 am

Looks thorough Claire! Notice how you could reduce this question to three answers based on themes? Economic, Political, Cultural.

Reply

Kizer

11/11/2013 08:42:49 am

Isn't the adoption of religion from agricultural civilizations more of a product of their interaction rather that a ways of it? It sounds more like an effect than a cause.

kizer

11/11/2013 08:58:46 am

nevermind

Reply

Jackson

11/13/2013 07:17:34 am

Also, I think a good supporting detail for the pastoral people's dependance economically on agricultural societies is that, very often, those societies actively tried to keep the nomads out, and tried to keep trading opportunities away from them (this is way back from chapter 9, page 249)

Reply

Alex R.

11/13/2013 10:03:45 am

I grouped if differently but used the same information.

•Religions spread through interaction w/ agriculturalists
- several forms of Christianity and other major religions like Judaism, Buddhism and Islam.
-Manichaeism, a religion combing Zoroastrian, Christian and Buddhist practices
•Relied on agricultural neighbors
-food, manufactured goods, and luxury items
•Forming of confederations or nomadic states
-made it easy and more fair for the nomads to deal with agricultural neighbors
-the states could extract wealth through trading, raiding, and extortion

Would this work?

Reply

Claire Metusalem

11/10/2013 02:55:37 am

I have have a little trouble with MQ #3. I couldn't really come up with an elaborate answer, in fact it is just one sentence.

"Did the history and society of the East African Masai people parallel that of Asian nomads?"

I said no, because no large states or chiefdoms developed.

I feel as if this is way too vague or incorrect. Feel free to comment!

Reply

Emma Dorfman

11/10/2013 03:42:48 am

Claire- There is a sentence at the end of this section that I believe sums up the answer to this margin question pretty well: "Peaceful interaction and mutual dependence as well as conflict and hostility characterized the relationship of nomadic herders and settled farmers in East Africa, much as it did in Eurasia. Like the Asian nomads, the Masai people also had a complicated relationship with their agricultural neighbors wherein they simultaneously relied on and fought with these "sedentary" peoples.

Reply

Victoria Cashman

11/10/2013 07:06:09 am

Yeah, what Emma said pretty much means that yes, they did parallel each other.
I also found that you could say:

-Pastoral societies in Asia and Africa both developed systems to organize society.
-In both societies the Pastoralists found the Agriculturalists inferior and vice versa.
-Pastoral societies in both places were willing to admit outsiders into their systems.
-Pastoral societies in both places also created alliances with a common enemy and intermarried.

Reply

Paris Bezanis

11/12/2013 01:01:52 pm

I have a question about that middle assertion, dosn't Strayer say it was the Chinese who admitted outsiders into the culture as a reaction to surrounding barbarians? As in not the pastoralists, but the agriculturalists.

Paris

11/12/2013 01:05:59 pm

Also I think it's important that both societies of pastoralists were highly dependent on their agriculturalsit neighbors and traded/raided them often.

LoLo Kroll

11/10/2013 03:52:24 am

I attempted to answer MQ #3, "In what ways did the Xiongnu, Arabs, and Turks make an impact on world history?", but I'm pretty sure I am missing some things. Please feel free to fill in what I couldn't find!

Xiongnu
- created a hierarchical political system from fragmented societies that influenced later Turkic and Mongol empires
Arabs
- birthplace of Islam
- developed an advanced camel saddle that allowed for control of trade routes and the expansion of the Arab empire
Turks
- 3rd major carrier of Islam

Reply

Bingham

11/10/2013 04:03:17 am

Yeah...The Turks carried Islam to new regions, including northern India and Anatolia; played an increasingly important role in the heartland of an established Islamic civilization, as the Seljuk Turks became the de facto power behind the Abbasid caliphate in the Middle East; and carved important empires out of settled societies, including the Ottoman Empire.

Reply

Sam Molina

11/10/2013 08:43:33 am

I also put, for Xiongnu, that:
-Creation of a hierarchical political system was a revolution in nomadic life.
-It grew and was sustained by tribute from other nomadic societies and even China, achieved equality and even more in terms of power and size with Han China

I'm not entirely sure if the last one answers the margin question, so any corrections are encouraged.

Reply

Shayla Nidever

11/12/2013 09:19:04 am

Could we also add that Xiongnu played a role in the collapse of Chinese & Roman empires, and then the "subsequent" re-buildings of them?

Sam Molina

11/13/2013 10:52:29 am

Shayla- For sure, the Xiongnu played a big role in the weakening of China. However, I'm not too sure that they played a role in the rebuilding of China. Also, I don't think that Xiongnu helped weaken or rebuild the Roman Empire. Remember that Strayer says that VARIOUS nomadic or seminomadic peoples played a role in the weakening and rebuilding of both China and Rome, not only the Xiongnu.

Paris

11/12/2013 12:29:21 pm

could you add to this that they revolutionized warfare by introducing the horse and tapping the immense potential of the animal?

Reply

Emma Dorfman

11/10/2013 04:19:06 am

I'll take a shot at MQ #8: "How was Mongol rule in Persia different from that in China?"

-Mongolian rulers in Persia imposed heavy taxes on peasants about 20 or 30 times a year while rulers in China did not.

-The irrigation systems of Persia were neglected by the government and agricultural land was reduced to waste, however no such thing occurred in China.

-Mongols in Persia were far more transformed by the people they conquered than China by their adoption of a Persian bureaucracy system/Persian officials. The Mongols in China, on the other hand, often used foreigners as officials.

This is roughly what I have gathered so far. There's a lot of "related, not relevant" possible answers in this section, so let me know if you think any of these are irrelevant.

Reply

Jessie DeArman

11/10/2013 05:17:19 am

I have a few others for this question that might work too, but let me know if not:

-Mongol rule in Persia resulted in damage to local agriculture and peasant farmers, while Khubilai Khan in China supported local agriculture and limited grazing of Mongol animals on peasant farming grassland

-In Persia, the Mongols left much of the government rule in Persian hands, while in China, the Mongols largely took over governmental affairs (this ties into your last one)

-In China, Mongol rulers were eventually driven out, while Mongols were assimilated into the Persian culture

-Mongols in Persia became Muslim, while those in China did not experience such widespread conversion

-Mongols established their rule far more abruptly in Persia, while it took 70 years in China

A lot of these might also be related rather than relevant (especially the second to last one), but hopefully they're points to consider!

Reply

Chase

11/10/2013 05:10:41 am

#7 (2parts)
Part 1)How did Mongol rule change China?

- A divided China became a 'united' China under Mongol rule
- Capital city of Karakorum was moved to "City of the Khan" which is now known as Beijing, building a whole new capital city known as Khan Balik.
- Mongols took Chinese dynastic title of 'Yuan'

Part 2) In what ways were the Mongols changed by China?

- Mongol khans used the traditional Confucian ritual which brought them a great deal political support
-Mongols used Chinese techniques of taxation, administrative practices and the Chinese postal system

Is there more to this or does this look complete? Someone let me know if there's more to this. Thanks! Chase

Reply

LoLo Kroll

11/10/2013 07:40:14 am

I think it is also important to note
- the Chinese accepted the Mongols as legitimate leaders under the mandate of heaven
- merchants were honored under Mongol leadership (contrary to Confucian values)

Reply

Chase

11/10/2013 05:26:29 am

8) How was Mongol rule in Persia different from that in China?
I've boiled it down to this...

• Persian peasants were taxed heavily, forcing them from their land
• Many of the conquering Mongols in Persia converted to the local Muslim faith (diff from China)
• Mongol rulers in Persia made extensive use of the Persian bureaucracy (much more extensively than in China)
• Many Mongols started farming & married local people (Persians), thus when Mongol rule in Persia ended they weren’t driven out (as in China)

Reply

Claire Metusalem

11/10/2013 05:55:07 am

Chase- Don't forget about abrupt vs. longer conquest, the differences in the political systems, prices forcing people out of China, and the sacking in Baghdad ending the Abbasid caliphate.
I personally found it easier to answer this question using a t-chart.

Reply

chase

11/10/2013 06:01:34 am

THANKS, CLAIRE!! I missed that! Will add it in - thank you so much!

Chase

11/10/2013 05:54:18 am

9) What was distinctive about the Russian experience of Mongol rule?

• Russia was conquered but was NOT actually occupied by Mongols (diff from China & Persia)
• Although Russia was also exploited, impact was “uneven”, not the same (diff from China & Persia) because there were some Russian princes that benefited (exp. Able to manipulate role of tribute collectors to grow wealthy, Russion Orthodox church flourished because of religious tolerance & received many tax exemptions, nobles who participated in Mongol raids earned part of the share of the loot)
• Some cities resisted and were likewise devastated, while cities who collaborated were left unharmed
• Russia suffered repeated attacks by Mongols who were still living nomadically in Caucus Mountains. Mongols raided Russia to take ‘loot and slaves’
• Mongols took skilled craftsmen and laborers and sold them as slaves – many Russians crafts were depleted and it took Russia a century or more to recover laborers and skilled craftsmen
• Devastation wrought by Mongol assault matched or exceeded everything that the Persian and Chinese experienced

Reply

Chase

11/10/2013 05:59:27 am

^^ 9) continued....also

• There was NO direct Mongol rule, so Mongols were less influenced and/or assimilated into Russian culture than in Persia & China

Reply

Chase

11/10/2013 06:44:08 am

10) In what ways did the Mongol empire contribute to the globalization of the Eurasian world?

• Enabled the spread of religions due to Mongol’s religious tolerance and their support of merchants
• Promotion of diplomatic relationships from one end of Eurasia to the other end of Eurasia – particularly between Western Europe & Mongols and between China & Persia
• Promotion of international business commerce (Mongol trading between the Near East and china was a key component in the bigger network that linked most of the Afro-Eurasion world in the 13th Century)
• Exchange of techniques and ideas spreading westward from China (printing, painting, weapons & gunpowder, medical technique, compass navigation) and on the other side, Muslim astronomers bringing their knowledge to China
• Exchange of people & culture due to the Mongol policy of transferring thousands of skilled craftsmen across the empire (from their homes to different parts of the empire)

Reply

Sam Molina

11/10/2013 08:56:31 am

MQ #5
Identify the major steps in the rise of the Mongol Empire.

•Birth of Temujin (1162) into a family of a noble clan, father was murdered when he was ten, Temujin and family became social outcasts of the clan early in his life.
•Temujin attracted a band of followers, allied with a more powerful tribe leader, and gained support from Chinese patrons.
•Multiple military victories over rival tribes and Temujin's reputation resulted in unification of tribes and national recognition of Temujin as Chinggis Khan.
•Expansion of Mongol rule throughout Eurasia by Chinggis Khan and sons (Ogodei, Mongke, and Khubilai) led to rise of Mongol Empire.

Reply

Emma Fielding

11/11/2013 07:56:09 am

What is this font.

Reply

Bingham

11/11/2013 08:49:00 pm

You don't like the font?

Reply

Shayla Nidever

11/12/2013 09:16:41 am

I love the font don't change it

Kizer

11/13/2013 09:07:08 am

Comic Sans is the only true font.

Emma Fielding

11/14/2013 08:03:56 am

It makes my brain hurt

anonymous

11/15/2013 01:41:06 am

ur font is terrible. hope this helped.

Emma Dorfman

11/11/2013 10:50:22 am

For the first margin question asking about differences between pastoralists and their agricultural counterparts, would it be valid to get into the specifics about women in MONGOLIAN society, or are those just supporting details??

Reply

Sam Molina

11/11/2013 01:05:45 pm

I believe that the specifics are supporting details, since they all relate back to the main difference about women between pastoral and agricultural societies.

Reply

Bingham

11/11/2013 08:50:41 pm

Great points Emma and Sam! That's the way I need you guys to think!

Claire Metusalem

11/12/2013 08:06:46 am

BQ #1

"Prior to the rise of the Mongols, in what ways had pastoral peoples been significant in world history?"

~ Basically, they spread Guns, Germs and Steel.
- Guns through military technology as well as tactics
- Germs through contact with trade, enslavement, and warfare.
- Steel through a trading network/exchange of messages and goods.
~ They tended to destroy weaker cultures and military organizations. Spread foods, goods, technologies, ideas, and religions that they received from previous travels.
~ Made possible the trade and exchange with their culture

Am I missing anything?

Reply

Bingham

11/12/2013 08:26:00 am

I love the approach Claire!

Reply

Allison Elder

11/13/2013 10:54:44 am

Hey! I'm confused on the answer to this question above. Strayer is asking about pastoral societies before the Mongols, and I didn't catch any mention of disease/germs spreading through major warfare or expansion. Also, little confused on where steel comes into play.
Someone mind clarifying for me?

Reply

Sam Molina

11/13/2013 11:11:51 am

Well, Strayer doesn't really talk about other pastoral societies in depth, considering that this chapter is entirely on the Mongols. So this explanation comes in part from Jared Diamond's GGS:

-Germs: Pastoral peoples lived in close proximity with animals all their lives. Therefore, germs were passed from animals to humans, and with that new diseases. Over time, the pastoral people built up an immunity to these diseases. When they conquered agricultural societies, whose inhabitants had less exposure to these diseases through less interaction with animals, the new diseases devastated the agriculturalists.
-Steel: When nomadic peoples raided and fought against agricultural societies, their hunting techniques and horse-riding skills gave them an advantage over agriculturalists. In truth, I see the horses as the nomadic peoples "main weapon", in a way synonymous to the steel swords that gave Europeans an advantage over Native Americans.

Well, hope this helps!

Sean Moses

11/12/2013 10:11:58 am

Hey did the little thing in the green sidebar on the homepage of Binghamsplace that says WHAP disappear for anyone else? When I'm on the homepage I can't seem to find it and I have to get to the forum from Google instead.

Reply

Shayla Nidever

11/12/2013 10:39:05 am

nope! Mine are still there. I would clear your cache, it's definitely not a website issue!

Reply

Sam Molina

11/12/2013 10:39:25 am

Yep. Bingham took it off the green sidebar and put it as a subcategory under Unit Info. Just move your pointer onto Unit Info and it'll pop up to the side.

Reply

Sam Molina

11/12/2013 12:05:53 pm

Sorry that post made no sense. WHAP is still there under Unit Info for me, no problem on Binghams Place.

Mallory Miller

11/12/2013 11:03:24 am

Ok, so I understand how you want us to answer the question in a less detail oriented way, but I'm still a little confused. Do you want us to state the "main idea," (ex. Broke with previous tribal structure) and then back it up with the the detailed evidence? If this is the case, are you now counting the main idea + evidence as one point?

P.S. I like this font. :)

Reply

Shayla Nidever

11/12/2013 11:22:07 am

Hey Mal! (: Let me try to show you an example. Lets take the second MQ "In what ways did pastoral societies interact with their agricultural neighbors?" As Bingham said much much much earlier in the forum, this can easily be divided into, economic, political, and cultural. But you can't simply answer the question "in political, economic, and cultural ways" obviously. You can provide broad examples for each category.
Political
-effectively dealt with neighbors because of nomadic state
-extracted wealth by raiding, trading, extortion
but you wouldn't want to put little details in there.
Cultural
-adopted all major religions
(here for example, explaining how the pastoral societies adopted the religions or where they adopted them from would be minor details that the question isn't asking for)
Economic
-Dependent on neighbors (because of foodstuffs, manufactured goods, luxury items, etc.)
^ and like the category above, each of those things would not be a point because they are simply an EXTENSION of the answer. Details that support the broader idea.

I may not have made any sense, but I hope I helped??

Reply

Mallory Miller

11/12/2013 11:26:45 am

Yeah, thanks Shay!

Bingham

11/12/2013 11:23:30 am

I'm saying give me the main idea (category) plus enough supporting detail so I know specifically what you are referring to.

Reply

Mallory Miller

11/12/2013 11:27:39 am

Ok, that clears it up. Thanks Bingham!

Reply

Kathryn King

11/12/2013 11:49:33 am

I wanted to try the categories for the first margin question and this is what I came up with. Any suggestions?

In what ways did pastoral societies differ from their agricultural counterparts?
1. Pastoral societies supported smaller population
 Less productive economies
 Need for large grazing areas
2. Social organization and hierarchy was based on ancestry
 Small/widely scattered encampments of related kinfolk
 Kinship-based clans that claimed common ancestry
 Related clans may become tribe, also absorbed unrelated people into community
3. Women had less restrictions
 Involved in productive labor, also had domestic responsibility for food and children
 Remarriage of widows had no negative connotations like Chinese
 Women could initiate divorce
 Served as political advisers
 Active in military affairs
4. Pastoral societies were more mobile than the agriculturalists
 Shifted herds in regular patterns
 Systematically followed seasonal changes in vegetation and water supply

Reply

Bingham

11/12/2013 08:44:42 pm

Yes! That's exactly it, well done Kathryn! I hope everyone sees this before they answer another question, or take the test.

Reply

Leina Betzer

11/13/2013 07:51:16 am

On the test should are we only receiving points for every main idea, or do we receive more points for more details added?

Shayla Nidever

11/12/2013 12:14:34 pm

Okay! So this was my crack at Big Picture Question #2. I know I'm missing like 10 million things, so can someone give me a nudge in the right direction?

"What accounts for the often negative attitudes of settled societies towards the pastoral peoples living on their borders? Why have historians often neglected pastoral peoples' role in world history? "

-Agricultural people disapproved of all the freedom given to women
-Pastorals were regarded as barbarians in most societies
-they were also seen as lazy and unwilling to engage in the hard work of cultivation.

As for them not showing up as much in history, all I could come up with is their lack of permanent cities and societies, and their fragmented state.

Am I totally off? Help appreciated :D

Reply

Shayla Nidever

11/12/2013 12:17:42 pm

OH! Also their lack of written history?? Because most of the accounts of them were by others (and usually their opinions were very biased and not good)

Reply

Bingham

11/12/2013 08:50:53 pm

Also, they didn't live in settled houses, annoying to agriculturalists . Also there whole raiding them thing, that tends to annoy people.
​and your right, historians have tended to neglect nomadic peoples because they generally did not have written languages, and thus the sources available came from adjacent agricultural civilizations. Also, agricultural civilizations ultimately triumphed in their long-running conflict with nomadic peoples.

Bingham

11/13/2013 12:22:15 am

Sorry for the spelling and grammar, it was before my first cup of coffee!

Reply

Shayla Nidever

11/13/2013 07:43:10 am

Guess who's actually studying like crazy this week! Not much activity on here, though?

BPQ #5 "How would you define both the immediate and long-term significance of the Mongol in world history?"

-long distance trade network
-prompted diplomatic relationships across Eurasia
-new capital city of Karakorum (I don't know if this is a slight unneeded details?)
-Helped Chinese culture spread west
-Facilitated the spreading of Black Death
-there was a ton of spreading of ideas, practices, and tech

I feel like I didn't quite answer the "long-term significance" part of the question.

Anyone have anything to add?

Reply

Kathryn King

11/13/2013 07:45:12 am

I was having some trouble answering the second margin question, but this is what I was able to come up with. Just wanted to check to see if anything else needs to be added before I start learning/memorizing my answers.
In what ways did pastoral societies interact with their agricultural neighbors?
1. Pastoralists depended on goods from agricultural societies
-Couldn’t live solely on products from their animals
-Want foodstuff, manufactured goods, luxury items available from adjacent civilizations.
2. Tribal confederations and nomadic states were created to more effectively deal with agriculturalists.
-Pastoralists lacked the wealth needed to get pro. armies and bureaucracies.
-Political unity was difficult because of independent and dispersed pastoral clans.
-Pastoralists used horseback riding and hunting skills.
3. Pastoralists were sustained by extracting wealth from agriculturalists through raiding, trading, or extortion
4. Agriculturalists got many world religions from pastoralists through top-down process
-Buddhism, forms of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Manichaeism (Zoroastrianism, Christian, Buddhist practices).
5. Pastoralists mastered environments unsuitable for agriculture and spread their ideas across societies.
-Animals- brought version of food producing revolution and substantial human presence to Afro-Eurasia.
-Pastoral people in Inner Asian steppes learned horseback riding and could accumulate larger herds of animals over much wider territory.
-New technologies spread across Eurasian steppes.

Reply

Jackson

11/13/2013 07:54:16 am

Well, I see that no one's posted margin question four yet, and I don't think it's a simple yes/no question.

Did the history and society of the Masai people parallel that of Asian nomads?
Short answer, yes and no.

Similarities:
Had a distinct social system that substituted for a state
Viewed pastoralists as superior (I think other pastoral societies thought this)
Dependent on agriculturalists
Mutual warfare as well as peaceful exchange
(the latter is not always the case, but not unique)
Culturally influenced agricultural people
Sometimes returned to agriculture
Assimilation into native society for invaders elsewhere

Differences:
Never developed a large state or chiefdom
“Age-set” system was unique
Did not invade and take up residence in other areas for extended periods of time

Reply

Casey Edeiken

11/13/2013 08:43:20 am

Jackson, I think based on the context of the question you have to pick a side and defend it. So I think more could be added to the Difference column (if you were to choose that particular view):

Differences:
-They were not always pastoral, they were agriculturally based until the 18th-19th(ish) centuries
-Outsiders could join the Masai by obtaining a herd of cattle

Note: on the second one I'm not terribly sure if other pastoral people's inducted new members that weren't part of the ancestral bloodline. So...if anyone has any answers on that.

Reply

Jackson

11/13/2013 09:26:37 am

Yeah, that way makes sense.
And as for your question, I know that when clans joined into cohesive tribes they often absorbed unrelated people, so that may be the equivalent in Asian pastoralists, but I don't know if it counts.

Kathryn King

11/13/2013 10:42:34 am

Study Tip: Break the margin questions up between you and someone else and share answers. If you have something else to add, go ahead and discuss it and add it. Also, see what BP question might be asked by looking at what has the most margin questions leading up to the answer.

Reply

Allison Elder

11/13/2013 11:23:36 am

Alright, big picture #3: In what ways did the Mongol Empire resemble other empires, and in what ways did it differ from them? Why did it last a relatively short time?

-The devastation of the plauge/Black Death weakened the Mongol Empire, allowing Russia and China to break from Mongol rule
-The Mongol empire differed from other empires in that it had a very small lasting cultural impact, especially compared to empires such as the Chinese, Roman, Greek and Islamic empires
-The Mongolian Empire grew from a pastoral society, while most large empires grew from established agricultural civilizations
-The Mongols had an exceptional military compared to most other empires
-The Mongol Empire was solely created because of one individual (Chinggis Khan), whereas this was not the case in the creation of other empires
- The Mongol Empire was similar to other empires in that it relied heavily on its military, participated and fostered trade, spread ideas and technology, and was expansive

Are these good comparisons? Anything I miss?

Reply

Victoria Cashman

11/13/2013 12:02:06 pm

Like the Roman Empire, the Mongol Empire became expansive because of its growing influence and not because that's what it set out to do in the first place.

The Mongols also supported merchants far more than Rome and China ever did, although that statement may be a bit detailed.

Reply

Victoria Cashman

11/13/2013 11:52:56 am

This question was answered somewhat before, but I tried to organize it better by using the categories Bingham suggested.

"In what ways did the Xiongnu, Arabs, and Turks make an impact on world history?"

Political:
-Eurasian civilizations came under nomadic control
-Xiongnu society became more centralized and hierarchical (was seen as revolution in nomadic life) and their system was a model for the Turks and Mongols
-various nomads weakened Chinese and Roman Empires
Turks confronted China, Byzantium, and Persia through raids, alliances, and trade.
-The Arabs developed a camel saddle that gave their military advantages in conquest.

Cultural:
-Islam was the most expansive religion derived from Arabs and carried to new regions by Turks
-Turks converted to Islam, became more influential, and toook power later.
-Turks brought Islam to N. India and Anatolia where it served as a foundation for developing empires.

This may have some issues, so please point them out. The general statements placed under political about nomads in general seemed to apply because the Xiongnu, Arabs, and Turks were all nomadic peoples.

Reply

Victoria Cashman

11/13/2013 12:08:39 pm

I missed something...Thanks Kathryn!!

I think this would go under political:
-the potential to use horseback riding in the military of nomadic societies enabled them to become noticeable in world history.

Reply

Drake Ragan and Victoria Cashman

11/13/2013 12:55:03 pm

"What accounts for the political and military success of the Mongols?"

Military:
-was very disciplined and loyal to leaders
-Mongols incorporated outside people into their military to make it stronger.
-had specific structure that allowed for more effective control and attacks on other civilizations
-acquired siege warfare ideas from China
-Khan was brutal with military to ensure that they complied with what the Mongol empire needed

Political:
-Mongols took over China when its state system was fragmented
-Mongols welcomed and supported many types of religions and granted officials of other groups low positions
-were kind toward merchants
-Developed a system of relay stations for trade and communication, which created a more cohesive empire

We probably missed stuff and some of this may not fit. So add corrections and stuff.

Reply

Briana Sanchez

11/13/2013 09:50:59 pm

I feel like my answers are too broad, for example for the first margin question I wrote
-less productive economies
-kinship based groups
-smaller population
-were nomadic
-less parriarchy
Any suggestions on how I can answer more correctly?

Reply

Drake Ragan

11/14/2013 01:20:45 am

I think your answers are fine, on the test just give a supporting detail and you will have the right answers!